Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Oracle shed about 20k roles globally in the last year

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 135 posts

Re: Oracle shed about 20k roles globally in the last year

#111

Post by angoragoats »

catigula wrote: post #110
protonbob wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Businesses are incentivized to say it’s because of AI because it makes them look better. So not saying that when actually asked by a government entity is meaningful.

How does firing people resultant of the most disliked and unpopular technology on the planet, and avoiding marking it off on an obvious entry-point into regulatory burden "make them look better"?

Anecdotally, we (humans) appear to be more accepting and less critical of companies giving AI-related layoff excuses, vs. perhaps telling a more truthful story like "we are losing money and are scrambling to reach profitability" or "we'd like to make the stock price go up."

Though I do agree there are a vocal group of people that are loudly outspoken about AI. I would guess that those people are a minority of the total population though, and tend to skew either techy or geographically local to areas hardest hit by data center build-out.

Re: Oracle shed about 20k roles globally in the last year

#112

Post by toast0 »

kstrauser wrote: post #96
shrubble wrote: post #70

A friend met with Oracle salesdroids (his company has spent a few million with them in the last few years). They told him everything is oriented towards AI, to the point that otherwise profitable software is not being updated and development has stopped on anything new. Oracle has a lot of niche solutions and the one my friend’s corporation uses is profitable but not on the AI path, so it is being put into maintenanc…

That’s makes sense in its way, if they’re convinced and absolutely certain that’s the future. By analogy, I bet there were some carriage manufacturers who bet the farm on internal combustion engines when horse drawn carriages were still popular. It would seem insane at the time for them to give up their reliable business for something risky and unknown. However, in retrospect it would seem like bad business to throw…

> However, in retrospect it would seem like bad business to throw resources after dead-end product lines, even if they’re valuable, because each dollar not advancing their automobile R&D was a dollar wasted on legacy stuff.

If each dollar you throw at dead-end product lines returns $1.20, that gives you more to spend on R&D for the new hotness. Shutting down the old business doesn't maximize spending on new R&D.

Now it's different when there's a conflict over resources. . However, in retrospect it would seem like bad business to throw resources after dead-end product lines, even if they’re valuable, because each dollar not advancing their automobile R&D was a dollar wasted on legacy stuff. If we need kstrauser to keep the old business running and we also need kstrauser to have effective R&D for the new business, hard choices are ahead. For carriage makers, manufacturing facilities would be the big resource issue; maybe you need to stop production of carriages to start working on horseless carriages because they're built in the same facility and can't share and a second location would be too costly.

I don't think the facility argument applies to Oracle. And probably not the key person argument either; line of business apps and AI are pretty different and I wouldn't expect a top person in one to be a top person in the other (although they might be).

Re: Oracle shed about 20k roles globally in the last year

#113

Post by missedthecue »

angoragoats wrote: post #106
missedthecue wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This conversation always gets lost in the weeds. You don't need a SOTA model to replace an entire engineer role from the time he gets into the office until he leaves. If you have a team of 10 and make them all a little faster, you can do the same amount of work with 9. Run this out over the entire industry and it's hundreds of thousands of roles that are redundant.

Do you have any research, empirical data, or other hard evidence that shows that a model (especially a non-SOTA model) makes engineers even "a little faster"? I'm aware of anecdotes, but nothing more.

The cleanest positive study is Cui et al., because it used randomized rollout in real companies. Developers at Microsoft, Accenture, and a Fortune 100 electronics manufacturer were randomly given access to an AI coding assistant. Pooled across 4,867 developers, the authors estimate a 26.08% increase in completed tasks among users. They also report increases in commits and builds.

While that research was published in 2026, it analyzed the 2023 period. Very much NOT sota models!

https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/mnsc.2025.00535

Re: Oracle shed about 20k roles globally in the last year

#114

Post by selimthegrim »

rayiner wrote: post #91

I suspect these AI-displaced workers in the long run will suffer the same fate as workers affected by deindustrialization. They won’t die of starvation, obviously. But they will never be “retrained” to roles that offer them similar income, status, and leverage over employers. Instead they’ll be sucked into an ever-expanding economy of service work.

>They won’t die of starvation, obviously.

Narrator: This was not, in fact, obvious.

Re: Oracle shed about 20k roles globally in the last year

#115

Post by OkayPhysicist »

forinti wrote: post #101
jcgrillo wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely unhinged behavior. If orcl goes nuts over chatbots and dies that will make this strange and profoundly icky era in tech all worth it.

The good bits will be sold off. Some of their products are very valuable, even if you don't like them.

That's a good thing. While Oracle's software has it's ups and downs, the worst thing about Oracle has always been Oracle.

Re: Oracle shed about 20k roles globally in the last year

#116

Post by angoragoats »

missedthecue wrote: post #113
angoragoats wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any research, empirical data, or other hard evidence that shows that a model (especially a non-SOTA model) makes engineers even "a little faster"? I'm aware of anecdotes, but nothing more.

The cleanest positive study is Cui et al., because it used randomized rollout in real companies. Developers at Microsoft, Accenture, and a Fortune 100 electronics manufacturer were randomly given access to an AI coding assistant. Pooled across 4,867 developers, the authors estimate a 26.08% increase in completed tasks among users. They also report increases in commits and builds. While that research was published in…

Thank you!

Re: Oracle shed about 20k roles globally in the last year

#117

Post by marcosdumay »

forinti wrote: post #90
marcosdumay wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's rational. Oracle has bet the farm on AI, if they don't make it work they will fail.

It doesn't seem rational to me that such a big company wouldn't prefer to diversify.

Once they made the loans they can only pay back if AI works out, no, it's completely rational to put all of their effort into making AI work out.

Either that, or to declare bankruptcy earlier to get better terms.

Re: Oracle shed about 20k roles globally in the last year

#118

Post by catigula »

angoragoats wrote: post #111
catigula wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does firing people resultant of the most disliked and unpopular technology on the planet, and avoiding marking it off on an obvious entry-point into regulatory burden "make them look better"?

Anecdotally, we (humans) appear to be more accepting and less critical of companies giving AI-related layoff excuses, vs. perhaps telling a more truthful story like "we are losing money and are scrambling to reach profitability" or "we'd like to make the stock price go up." Though I do agree there are a vocal group of people that are loudly outspoken about AI. I would guess that those people are a minority of the tot…

No, the majority of the population is hostile to AI. This has been surveyed time and time again. I definitely disagree with your premise.

Re: Oracle shed about 20k roles globally in the last year

#119

Post by burnt-resistor »

catigula wrote: post #110
protonbob wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Businesses are incentivized to say it’s because of AI because it makes them look better. So not saying that when actually asked by a government entity is meaningful.

How does firing people resultant of the most disliked and unpopular technology on the planet, and avoiding marking it off on an obvious entry-point into regulatory burden "make them look better"?

Because it sounds better than saying "we're firing people to suppress wages and make even more absurd profits. oh, and we invested a collective $1.4T as an industry so far in AI but can't find a path to profitability".

Re: Oracle shed about 20k roles globally in the last year

#120

Post by angoragoats »

catigula wrote: post #118
angoragoats wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdotally, we (humans) appear to be more accepting and less critical of companies giving AI-related layoff excuses, vs. perhaps telling a more truthful story like "we are losing money and are scrambling to reach profitability" or "we'd like to make the stock price go up." Though I do agree there are a vocal group of people that are loudly outspoken about AI. I would guess that those people are a minority of the tot…

No, the majority of the population is hostile to AI. This has been surveyed time and time again. I definitely disagree with your premise.

That may be true and I'm absolutely unfamiliar with the data, so I'll take you at your word.

Regardless, whether or not the majority of people are hostile to AI was not my main point. My point was that regardless of the public sentiment about AI, it seems that the general public is more accepting (or perhaps forgiving) of a CEO saying "We are laying off people because of AI" than, for example, "We are laying off people to save money and preserve shareholder value." (I am paraphrasing in both of these cases; obviously a real statement would be more obfuscated in corporate-speak in either case).

That seems odd to me, _especially_ if the majority of the public is hostile to AI.

Post reply on HN